Question for Anti-Tariffists

[The Rebel Poet]

If you don't like tariffs, how should a government, state, or voluntary political association be funded?

[Origanalist]

Voluntarily.

[dannno]

Voluntarily?

But if you're going to fund it through taxation, low tariffs are the best way.

Trump dipping his toe into the tariff pool will give him leverage to lower our export tariffs that have been shackled on us by other countries. Time to watch "The Art of the Deal" in action..

[Madison320]

Voluntarily?

But if you're going to fund it through taxation, low tariffs are the best way.

Trump dipping his toe into the tariff pool will give him leverage to lower our export tariffs that have been shackled on us by other countries. Time to watch "The Art of the Deal" in action..

So you think Trump's plan is to replace the income tax with tariffs?

The problem is that none of it matters unless you shrink government spending and Trump is doing the opposite.

[dannno]

So you think Trump's plan is to replace the income tax with tariffs?

What? No. That would be awesome, but that isn't what I said at all..

[RonZeplin]

Make aluminum can collecting great again!



Price of aluminum up due to tariff.

[Zippyjuan]

Make aluminum can collecting great again!



Price of aluminum up due to tariff.

But the recycling fee is based on what a state sets as the deposit.

[osan]

So you think Trump's plan is to replace the income tax with tariffs?

The problem is that none of it matters unless you shrink government spending and Trump is doing the opposite.

You need to learn to spell "Congress".

You're welcome.

[Madison320]

You need to learn to spell "Congress".

You're welcome.

True, but it's a group effort. Trump wants bigger government also. Don't forget he signed it.

[osan]

True, but it's a group effort. Trump wants bigger government also. Don't forget he signed it.

It would pass anyway. I'm not defending Trump, but I'm not yet condemning him either. We don't know what goes on behind closed doors. We don't know Trump's broader objectives. He may be just about one of Theire stooges. That has yet to be proved. He's done some good things, said some really stupid things. At this point I see no basis for reaching a conclusion. This is a tangled web we traverse; who knows what other factors are at play, what other unintuitive tactics pursuant to a greater strategy. Or he is just another stooge and we are in worse shape than before. At this point another marginal step toward the end of all that is good doesn't really make much difference. The time to $#@! or get off the pot will come sooner or later. Accounts will be settled at that time, either by positive or negative choosing. I'm old-ish. I don't give that much of a $#@! what happens because I intend on escaping this prison sooner than later.

[PierzStyx]

Time to watch "The Art of the Deal" in action..

Another thing Trump has lied about doing.

Trump, facing a crowd that had gathered in the lobby of Trump Tower, on Fifth Avenue, laid out his qualifications, saying, “We need a leader that wrote ‘The Art of the Deal.’ ” If that was so, Schwartz thought, then he, not Trump, should be running. Schwartz dashed off a tweet: “Many thanks Donald Trump for suggesting I run for President, based on the fact that I wrote ‘The Art of the Deal.’ ”

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...iter-tells-all

[Raginfridus]

Another thing Trump has lied about doing.

Sun Tzu for President, because everybody else is a plagiarist.

[Brian4Liberty]

Ah, someone remembers the Harry Browne / Ron Paul platforms which called for abolishing the income tax, and funding the Federal government via excise taxes and (low, flat) tariffs, as the Constitution originally allowed.

[timosman]

Ah, someone remembers the Harry Browne / Ron Paul platforms which called for abolishing the income tax, and funding the Federal government via excise taxes and (low, flat) tariffs, as the Constitution originally allowed.

Unfortunately common sense isn't common.

[thoughtomator]

So spending increases, taxes are reduced. How is it paid for?

It's "paid for" by adding to a national debt that will never be repaid. So ultimately it will be those who chose to buy shares in the ability of the government to extract wealth from us by force, who end up eating the losses. And it will be divine justice when it happens.

[kcchiefs6465]

It's "paid for" by adding to a national debt that will never be repaid. So ultimately it will be those who chose to buy shares in the ability of the government to extract wealth from us by force, who end up eating the losses. And it will be divine justice when it happens.

Fair enough.

The correction will be that much more painful.

Also it isn't as if when the house of cards starts to unravel there will not be a dollar dump for actual assets. And while I'm all on board with giving the usurers the finger, not every creditor is going to eat the losses and even while the majority do, still the repercussions of living beyond our means will be felt for years if not decades.

[thoughtomator]

Fair enough.

The correction will be that much more painful.

Also it isn't as if when the house of cards starts to unravel there will not be a dollar dump for actual assets. And while I'm all on board with giving the usurers the finger, not every creditor is going to eat the losses and even while the majority do still the repercussions of living beyond our means will be felt for years if not decades.

That ship sailed so long ago there is little to nothing we can do about it at this point. Back when we were campaigning our asses off for RP there was still a chance. After 8 years of Obama our last chance to avoid default is gone.

The creditors will eat the losses because they have no other choice. We have nukes and we will still have them after the default.

[kcchiefs6465]

That ship sailed so long ago there is little to nothing we can do about it at this point. Back when we were campaigning our asses off for RP there was still a chance. After 8 years of Obama our last chance to avoid default is gone.

The creditors will eat the losses because they have no other choice. We have nukes and we will still have them after the default.

Would you expect Congress to limit foreign investment in land and other hard assets within the United States?

I half expect the whores of Congress to authorize the wholesale of acreage to profit one last time off this funny money scheme. Parcel off thousands of acres to satisfy certain so called obligations and establish their socialist fiefdom.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[TheCount]

After 8 years of Obama our last chance to avoid default is gone.

He says while supporting a guy who makes Obama look like a fiscal conservative.

[presence]

Ah, someone remembers the Harry Browne / Ron Paul platforms which called for abolishing the income tax, and funding the Federal government via excise taxes and (low, flat) tariffs, as the Constitution originally allowed.

I'd be in favor of a system that abolished all taxes and replaced with flat tarrif
I'd be in favor of a system that abolished all welfare and replaced it with UBI

I have zero intererst in UBI or tariffs without abolition of all other forms of taxation and welfare.

even if we got to the point of no other taxes and welfare and we were down to just UBI and tariffs...
I'd still consider such a system theft, feel no moral obligation to comply, and petition for redress;
including but not limited to abolition of legal tender and the FED
which at its onset would defund any of these bullshitisms

the only legitimate form of governance is a signed contract

voluntary or GTFO

[osan]

I'd be in favor of a system that abolished all taxes and replaced with flat tarrif
I'd be in favor of a system that abolished all welfare and replaced it with UBI

I have zero intererst in UBI or tariffs without abolition of all other forms of taxation and welfare.

even if we got to the point of no other taxes and welfare and we were down to just UBI and tariffs...
I'd still consider such a system theft, feel no moral obligation to comply, and petition for redress;
including but not limited to abolition of legal tender and the FED
which at its onset would defund any of these bullshitisms

the only legitimate form of governance is a signed contract

voluntary or GTFO

This is reasonable.

For one thing, practically speaking if we were to abolish all taxation this afternoon the nation would be in a lot of trouble. We are like the world's largest heroin addict. When you stop your $500/day habit from one moment to the next, bad things happen. Just ask Jerry Garcia.

A piecemeal path to lesser servitude is what is needed. How about we take the first steps first, acclimate, assess, and then move on?

I fully agree that it is all theft, but one must consider the practicalities of global politics. America does not operate in a vacuum. The world is full of predators, we being perhaps the worst of the lot. Assuming we got righteous on foreign policy, there would still be nations seeking to do us harm. Some will dismiss this, but that is foolery.

Imagine if you will that we go full-Constitution - forget the ideals of anarchy. We dissolve our standing armies, establish peaceable relations with our global neighbors, and unleash the brute power of the free market and the sheer creative juggernaut of the American spirit. The result, as we all know, would be an economy that would leave the rest of the world in the dust, to the point of global embarrassment, which would be the key issue in result of our prosperity. Theye, of course, who are the globalists would still have the rest of the world by its balls. Firstly, could they afford to allow the example of American thermonuclear success stand before the rest of the repressed world as an example counter to their collectivist-authoriratian tenets? Not a chance. The world would see and would inevitably begin to resist Themme.

Secondly, so ripe a fruit as a high-flying America would be impossible for Themme to resist as a mere matter of avarice and their inability to control themselves. History is logged with examples of this. For thousands of years tyrants have been raiding their more prosperous and freer neighbors. The statistics are moutainously heaped against any possibility of Themme keeping their hands to themselves.

This being the almost certain case, would America be able to defend itself against the predations of other nations bent on looting? Maybe, maybe not. Given we have more weapons than the rest of the world combined, there is maybe even odds that we could. But why would we want to risk being attacked? Just as the mere presence of a gun is most often sufficient to deter an attack, the presence of some military force serves the same purpose on the national scale. This does not mean that military must perforce be federally funded and managed, but there are definite advantages to it over every county in the nation mustering its own defense force. Superorganization is a distinct advantage over fragmented varieties. People have erroneously held Vietnam as an example of how small, determined forces can defeat a superpower. This is an ignorant lie. We "lost" in Vietnam because we had no objective of winning, period. Additionally, the VC as well as the NVA were heavily subsidized by the Soviets. They were no civilian-funded militia.

Therefore, the risks assumed when America disbands its military in favor of local militia are huge, the assumption being highly unsound. Once again I acknowledge that it is a very $#@!ty reality into which we have been born, but it has been this way since time immemorial for the large human civilizations. Gathered into large enough groups, humans take on a very different character from that of the individual. Barring the good old "reset event", this is not going to change, ever. Therefore, it seems to me that we as a people are behooved to take certain practical measures that best ensure reasonable safety from extra-national predation while minimally impacting liberty.

We can go full anarchist - nothing would please me more - but I do not think the global context would allow it to stand for very long for the reasons cited, above.

But once again, first things first. Take the first steps toward liberty and continue in piecemeal fashion until such time as we either achieve the autodiathist ideal or we run into a wall of practicality that, were we to pass it, would result in catastrophe. This gives us time to acclimate and assess, which are of paramount importance on any journey toward freedom in a world that is so far from it.

[oyarde]

If you don't like tariffs, how should a government, state, or voluntary political association be funded?

You have missed quite a bit , anti tariffists are more likely to support taxes , be open borders and wear dirty underwear while running a cord to the guy next doors house for electric while they post in the squalor of an abandoned basement that smells of rat urine while avoiding paying student loans they spent on Mac n Cheese .

[The Rebel Poet]

You have missed quite a bit , anti tariffists are more likely to support taxes , be open borders and wear dirty underwear while running a cord to the guy next doors house for electric while they post in the squalor of an abandoned basement that smells of rat urine while avoiding paying student loans they spent on Mac n Cheese .

You forgot Muslim. They all said they're Muslim right here in this thread.

[oyarde]

You forgot Muslim. They all said they're Muslim right here in this thread.

And all those other false Gods too . RPF members will be along shortly though to give tax increases and govt spending increases and other satanic verses positive reinforcement .

[Ender]

You forgot Muslim. They all said they're Muslim right here in this thread.

LOL!

[CaptUSA]

I’m not morally opposed to a low uniform tariff that is applied at a real low rate across all industries and all imports. But this is not what we have nor what is being discussed. This is about cronyism to benefit one sector of the economy at the expense of all the rest.

[TheCount]

I’m not morally opposed to a low uniform tariff that is applied at a real low rate across all industries and all imports. But this is not what we have nor what is being discussed. This is about cronyism to benefit one sector of the economy at the expense of all the rest.

This. Also, it's likely impossible to pay for the current size of government via tariffs. You'd entirely choke off trade first.

[kcchiefs6465]

If it were worthwhile, people would pay for it.

Lotteries, donations, pools for specific programs one wishes to enlist in.

If tariffs were uniformly 2% and the income tax were abolished that would be leaps and bounds better than what we have now.

That is not going to happen as spending will not be cut.

[Zippyjuan]

If it were worthwhile, people would pay for it.

Lotteries, donations, pools for specific programs one whiches to enlist in.

If tariffs were uniformly 2% and the income tax were abolished that would be leaps and bounds better than what we have now.

That is not going to happen as spending will not be cut.

A 2% tariff on everything imported would give you $44 billion to spend. (Imports last year were $1.2 trillion)

If you want tariffs to replace the income tax, they would need to be to be just over 100%.
Include your Social Security taxes and you are up to 150%.
If you want a balanced budget at current spending levels you need a 200% tariff on every single item imported.